Ron Paul: Trump is Just Like CNN, Putting Out His Own False News to Start War in Syria

In a peculiar move, the White House announced Monday evening a chemical weapons attack in Syria will be carried out soon by the regime of Bashar al-Assad against civilians — the second government-launched attack on his own people in the past few months — and that the U.S. would pulverize Syrian forces as retribution.

If, that is, gargantuan holes in logic suit your fancy — because nearly every facet of the above ‘facts’ touted by the corporate press and White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer depart so far from the truth as to be farcically unrecognizable.

Spicer tweeted,

“The United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children. The activities are similar to preparations the regime made before its April 4, 2017 chemical weapons attack.

“As we have previously stated, the United States is in Syria to eliminate the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. If, however, Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

Statements from @PressSec on #syria pic.twitter.com/gEqPAf6WBk

— Sean Spicer (@PressSec) June 27, 2017

Prognostication this specific must only have graced only Spicer, as Assad’s nefarious plot utterly baffled top-level military officials — whom, one would surmise, should be made cognizant of the need to retaliate — as the New York Times reports,

“An official with the United States Central Command, which oversees combat operations in the Middle East, said Monday night that he had ‘no idea’ what the White House statement was referring to.”

Further, the as-yet unproven narrative Assad carried out a deadly chemical attack against his own people — for reasons never made apparent — crumbled nearly beyond repair on Sunday, with an article from journalist Seymour Hersh citing communications between an active duty U.S. soldier and a security adviser indicating Washington and the Pentagon knew all along the April gassing was not only not Assad’s doing, it wasn’t an attack, at all.

Addressing the numerous conundrums and logical Gordian knots emanating from Washington and its mouthpiece mainstream press, foreign policy expert Daniel McAdams discussed the embarrassing truth of the matter with government critic and former presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, for the Liberty Report. He writes,

“So President Trump is fighting against CNN’s ‘fake news’ while he is putting out fake news that the Syrian government is about to attack its citizens with gas? Trump has more in common with CNN than he would like us to believe.”

“Last night the White House released a shock statement that the Syrian government was about to use chemical weapons ‘again’ on its citizens and that the United States would launch a massive response. At the time, the AP reported that neither the State Department nor the Pentagon or intelligence agencies seemed to know anything about it. US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley warned that any attack on citizens of Syria would be automatically blamed on Assad (as well as Russia and Iran). It seems Trump is ready for a massive attack on the Syrian government — coincidentally just a day after a major piece by Seymour Hersh showed that the US intelligence community knew that the April ‘chemical attack’ was no such thing but that Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles anyway.”

Without an impetus clear in purpose, the U.S. must enjoin support for its desired intervention in Syria through other channels, since aggressive military acts against a sovereign nation could be considered an act of war or war crime. Thus, to accomplish a goal of ousting Assad, an unpleasant narrative — such as his inexplicably gassing innocent civilians — must be proffered, no matter its veracity.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley pumped up the propagandic rhetoric Monday, as well, tweeting,

“Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.”

Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.

— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) June 27, 2017

Perhaps Haley made the statement unaware anyone with integrity would question why a ruler would choose to slay innocent civilians, knowing the U.S. military — which would swiftly respond — dwarfs all others on the planet by orders of magnitude in size and funding.

Of course, questioning that Assad would attack the people under his rulership — though verboten by a corporate press in bed with whatever agenda Washington throws its way — must be done, considering previous similar claims from other putative chemical attacks have collectively either been proven incorrect or inconclusive.

And as McAdams points out, the timing of this odd announcement Assad will be held responsible for any attacks against Syrians follows ridiculously close to Hersh’s earth-shattering report that the U.S. knew at the time the administration lobbed bombs into Syria, government forces did not, in fact, carry out any chemical attack, whatsoever.

Dr. Paul summoned the specter of former President George W. Bush’s elusive WMDs as a comparison, stating,

“Well, you remember the story about the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were about to ‘hit us’ back in the early part of this century, and the reason why we had to ‘protect’ the American people. We had to protect our freedoms and we had to protect our Constitution by going and killing a couple hundred thousand people […]

“This is really strong language … But, I’ll tell you one thing: There’s no evidence the people in Commerce or in the administration will sit down and think about it a little bit. You know, ‘What are the ramifications?’”

Dr. Paul notes not even the realists have paused to consider repercussions of pegging Assad responsible and then initiating retaliation.

In April, the U.S. blocked independent and U.N. investigations into the supposed chemical weapons use by Assad — a clear indicator truth did not comprise the central motivation for the claim. To believe that account of events, the public must compromise rationale, instead opting to surmise Assad acted in stupidity against innocents with no possible benefit to his regime.

Indeed, no logic exists in the idea Assad would pause conventional warfare pushing terrorists of various stripes out of Syria to kill his own people with chemical munitions, thereby alienating Syrian ally, Russia, and provoking the U.S. in the process, McAdams remarked.

While it’s still unclear how far the U.S. will go in pushing its pro-war agenda in Syria, Russia — Assad’s primary power ally — might not tolerate belligerent, obdurate posturing much longer. We could, as Dr. Paul opined, be heading into a far messier — if not detrimental — involvement than the empire can tenably sustain.

Gaddafi Predicted and Tried to Stop this Terror Wave in UK, So the US Murdered Him

Outspoken critic of Big Government and former U.S. presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, blasted the West for ignoring admonishments from deposed, late, Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, who asserted prior to his death, the rise of U.S.-supported Islamic extremists would lead to attacks on Europe — years before Salman Abedi detonated an explosive device, killing 22 at a concert in Manchester.

Children, adolescents, and adults had gathered for a concert by pop superstar Ariana Grande and had begun to exit the Manchester venue when Abedi exploded a shrapnel-laden device — causing pandemonium, severely injuring scores, and killing 22 people.

Could the Manchester attack have been prevented — even long before MI5 also warned an incident may be forthcoming?

On the Liberty Report, Daniel McAdams noted,

“Gaddafi — when the radicals had started rising in Eastern Libya, when the U.S. was supporting them — he said, ‘I’m telling you guys, these are radical Islamists, these are terrorists, if you keep supporting them, there’s gonna be trouble.’”

McAdams and Dr. Paul cited an article from January, 2016, from the Telegraph, titled, “Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks on Europe, phone conversations reveal,” in which the content of communications between the two leaders revealed how precisely the ill-fated leader of Libya prognosticated future blowback from current Western support of radicals.

Apparently lucid enough to grasp the ramifications Western support would effect throughout Europe — in the aiding terrorists to fit its own ends — on February 25, 2011, Gaddafi portended the dark turn in a phone conversation with former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, cautioning,

“They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe.”

Gaddafi, in the half hour call, insisted repeatedly he only wished to shield Libyan civilians from an onslaught of violence wrought by al-Qaeda fighters — a battle in which government forces were unable to make headway. Quoting transcripts of Gaddafi’s comments during the call, the Telegraph continued,

“We are not fighting them, they are attacking us. I want to tell you the truth. It is not a difficult situation at all. The story is simply this: an organisation has laid down sleeping cells in North Africa. Called the Al-Qaeda Organisation in North Africa… The sleeping cells in Libya are similar to dormant cells in America before 9/11.

“They have managed to get arms and terrify people. people can’t leave their homes… It’s a jihad situation. They have arms and are terrorising people in the street.”

Then, in a subsequent call four hours later, he added,

“I will have to arm the people and get ready for a fight. Libyan people will die, damage will be on the Med, Europe and the whole world. These armed groups are using the situation [in Libya] as a justification – and we shall fight them.”

In fact, Abedi’s very family fought Ghaddafi during the revolt in 2011.

As Dr. Paul notes, Gaddafi’s desperate words weren’t intended as a threat, rather, as counsel to Blair on the deleterious repercussions manipulation by the U.S. and Western allies would reap — not only across northern Africa and the Middle East, but in Europe.

Gaddafi, Dr. Paul said, was “saying, ‘this could have bad consequences.’ And it turned out, he was absolutely right.”

Indeed, today saw headlines plastered with news Abedi’s family twice approached British Intelligence with concerns their loved one had begun entertaining terrorist fantasies.

“Abedi’s support for terrorism was reported this year to the security services, and friends had called,” The Times reports. “Britain’s anti-terrorist hotline five years ago with concerns about his views, it was claimed. He was reported for violent statements, including a claim that being a suicide bomber was ‘OK.’”

While it remains unclear whether Abedi garnered targeted surveillance from MI5, what has been made apparent is even direct and unequivocal warnings on specific persons of interest doesn’t necessitate an open and willing ear from perpetually — if ostensively, only — suspicious Western Intelligence agencies.

Abedi’s brother, now having been arrested in Tripoli, allegedly affirmed Salman and himself to be members of the pernicious, self-titled Islamic State — and that his brother told of his plans for the Manchester attack.

However, when it comes to insidious dealings of Intelligence services, the ends — and not warnings with immediacy — seem far too often to play into State decision-making.

Not long after Gaddafi’s pleas to Blair and other Western leaders, his and Libya’s tragic fates were sealed.

With his ouster and killing, plans to supplant the U.S. petrodollar with the gold-based African dinar — which could have brought the continent into economic relevance — could not come to fruition.

And his warnings of impending doom throughout Europe — resulting from years of meddling in the affairs of cultures governments of sovereign nations and the manipulation of terrorist groups to serve hegemonic plunder — can now only echo in the minds of those most guilty for turning a deaf ear.

Ron Paul: Comey was a Good Start — Now Fire the Entire FBI

President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and set ablaze the Internet gossip mill, as political analysts and ordinary Americans, alike, debated the implications for the bureau’s investigation into the president’s alleged collusion with Russia — while others celebrated that, for the first time, it might be possible to copy that favorite VHS tape or remove the tags from pillows without an agent knocking down the front door.

Others proposed more ambitious plans for the newly headless Federal Bureau of Investigation — perhaps, Dr. Ron Paul posited, the entire bureau should be disbanded.

Lamenting the degree to which Comey’s termination has been politicized by media pundits and Washington pols, Paul implored the need for critical thinking on the matter, asking the nation to consider several imperatives.

“What is the purpose of the FBI? And are they fulfilling a purpose?” Dr. Paul rhetorically asks Daniel McAdams for the Liberty Report. Further, is it possible Comey had already politicized the position of FBI director, well before Trump harkened back to his days as a reality TV host to tell the head spook, ‘You’re fired’?

Further still, is the existence of an organization “investigating and spying on everybody” in the country even necessary — let alone, justifiable?

With around 35,000 agents at its disposal — enough to populate a small city — the agency has mushroomed to proportions unnecessary for a nation virtually devoid of terrorism or other constant, existential threats.

Dr. Paul explains the spin machine keeps Comey’s firing in the headlines, with politicians contributing significantly in plastering the incident — rather than aggressive and belligerent actions by the U.S. military — nonstop across headlines. Indeed, the same politicians now feigning disgust with Trump’s dismissal of the FBI chief, just one month ago would have seen Comey’s head on a figurative platter.

That hypocrisy and the resultant untenable anger on display merits a closer look at whether the controversial spy organization has outlived any benefit to the public, if in fact, there ever was one.

Discussing the State’s propaganda machine, Dr. Paul emphasizes that what’s typically termed ‘spin’ in actuality, “it’s mostly flat-out lying — when they lie us into war,” as has been the case in Syria and a lengthy list of other zones of conflict with U.S. military involvement.

“It isn’t just modification in tone,” he continues, “it literally is deceiving the people. And this doesn’t mean that what’s happening at the FBI isn’t serious, but I also think this whole process brings up the subject, ‘How important is the FBI?’

“I mean, it is powerful. And we know this is just one-hundred-and-some years old, and was started during Teddy Roosevelt’s term in office — which is no surprise — and they don’t have a very good record.”

It was the era of J. Edgar Hoover — a man who held the position for nearly five years, Comey has been forced to leave — when the collection of data became an obsession of the FBI. Hoover’s bureau possessed “data on everybody,” and frequently used that as a form of political “blackmail,” Paul notes, adding, “in many ways, Hoover was a disgrace, but that sentiment has continued, and still exists in the FBI.”

Hoover’s storied tenure with the bureau forced the imposition of a ten-year term limit for FBI directors. Dr. Paul isn’t alone in such a critical assessment of the FBI’s history and continued legacy after Hoover.

Indeed, the controversial figure managed to keep that title for so long, in part, because, as former Washington Post investigative reporter Ronald Kessler noted,

“He wrapped himself in the flag and was this great patriot, and nobody could question him, so in that sense, he was a product of the times.”

“But over the course of his term,” TIME reports, “the power he held began to seem a little too extreme. During those years, Hoover had already become infamous for keeping blackmail files on members of Congress, even Presidents, and for wire-tapping dissidents (which, in his view, even included Martin Luther King Jr.). Even so, he kept his job. Richard Hack, author of Puppet Master: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover, told NBC’s Dateline that President John F. Kennedy was ‘scared to death’ of Hoover because he didn’t know the full extent of the dirt that Hoover may have had on him. As President Lyndon B. Johnson once explained why he couldn’t fire Hoover: ‘I’d rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.’”

To bring that history into modern relevance, McAdams explains the FBI’s pattern of quashing vocal opposition to U.S. involvement in various wars is longstanding if unstated policy — currently, and particularly, in the case of Syria, where a proxy battle with Russia has been ongoing for years.

Dr. Paul suggests the FBI’s penchant for scrutinizing dissenters both inside and outside the political realm could be in practice now, as the Hoover-era bureau amassed data on German- and Japanese-Americans — beginning a full two years prior to the start of World War II. Even more telling of our present climate and the focus of the Feds, McAdams adds, that same FBI kept an eye on politicians seeking a diplomatic recognition of Soviet Russia — the same narrative proffered by the D.C. establishment today, sans the U.S.S.R. overtones.

“It’s like history repeating itself,” McAdams asserts.

“You know, the founders warned against a standing army,” Dr. Paul affirms, “and I think … we have the standing army. We have the nationalization of the police force. And the FBI has thirty-five thousand in their ‘army.

“But that is even small when you look up everything else under the Department of Homeland Security. I mean, we are an armed State against the People. There are probably more people patrolling our streets from the Federal Government than the horrible mess we’re doing overseas.”

Dr. Paul asks, “And what do they do? We end up losing. We’re supposed to be fighting and getting involved to protect our Constitution and our liberties.”

But that isn’t what the FBI does — its collection of information on American citizens and leaders runs in direct contradiction to the supposed protection of freedoms with which such an organization ostensively began.

Looking to the formation of the United States, Paul reminds the audience just three areas were considered the purview of Congress: “treason, counterfeiting, and piracy” — today’s manifestation of federal oversight has instead become a pernicious and overbearing force, with the FBI one of the primary culprits.

As Paul and McAdams continue the discussion, the insidious nature of the modern FBI is made apparent, between spying and data collection, to the creation of a climate of fear — where a pro-war, pro-U.S. interventionist belief system equivocates laudable patriotism — and civilians blindly accept whatever narrative the government puts forth, no matter the consequences to liberty and innate rights.

“I would not be upset if we didn’t have an FBI,” Dr. Paul opines.

People might believe such a stance means an Intelligence Community shouldn’t exist at all, but Paul clarifies, “I believe in an intelligent gathering of intelligence — and not to give power to a select group working in privacy.”

Perhaps, considering the tabloidesque iterations in headlines and discussions of the firing of James Comey, Ron Paul’s call to dismantle the factious spy organization known as the FBI isn’t such a ludicrous proposition, after all.